Tuesday, February 20, 2007

This just in: Meryl Streep will play Sister Aloysius in the film adaptation of the Broadway hit Doubt. They'll start filming late this year for a 2008 release. Which means La Streep is winning her third Oscar (finally) in February 2009. Don't believe me? Then you haven't seen Doubt. Remember how I said before Effie White was cast for Dreamgirls that whoever got the role would be up for the Oscar? Same thing here. Sister Aloysius is one of those parts. In the right hands it's a sensational character. And we all know that Streep knows how to handle a strong character.

Doubt is an intense four character play which concerns a young priest who is suspected of molesting a boy. Sister Aloysius, a stubborn old school nun investigates. When I saw Doubt back in 2005 I wasn't completely wowed by it but it's very solid stuff and theater audiences in general were madly in love with it. Cherry Jones (pictured in the role above) was genius beating Kathleen Turner to the TONY that year. Streep should likewise be able to clobber the other nominees in February 2009 with Sister Aloysius as battle axe. Provided of course that they don't bungle the movie. Did somebody say Proof?

Even if they bungle the movie, Streep will win awards. Sorry, but Gwyneth is no Meryl Streep. Streep can spin shit into gold. Plus, John Patrick Shanley knows how to write screenplays (*cough*MOONSTRUCK*cough*)

But how will she ever find time now for her OTHER 8 upcoming projects? Including the OTHER one she's supposed to synch the oscar for (Dirty Tricks)? Mee oh my, Meryl will be busy. Hugs & kisses, Meryl.

I loved Doubt when I saw it onstage. I saw it with Eileen Atkins and Jenna Malone last summer.

I actually think that Sister Aloysius might be one of those roles like the one in Manchurian Candidate that Streep is in danger of overplaying. (Cherry Jones was occasionally in danger of this, toothe script almost guarantees iteven though I thought hers was a great performance overall.)

Whoever gets the part of the boy's mother has a pretty solid head-start at critical attention, too. You know Angela Bassett is kicking. ass. until she gets this part.

I liked "Proof"--the film--but I didn't see the play, so I guess I would think differently had I (seen the play).

But, Paltrow was good (I thought it was her a career best and I don't care all that much for the rest of what she had done) and she was on the short list for a nomination. Afterall, Theron and Knightley's noms could have just as easily gone to Paltrow and Ziyha.

Love Meryl, but when I saw this report yesterday my heart sank. Cherry plays this part pitch perfect, austere with moments of wicked wit; listening to her tear into Frosty the Snowman got me every time. They could have found names for every other part, though I was very fond of Adriane Lenox as Mrs. Muller, and given this to Cherry, she doesn't simply deserve it, she owns it.

I'm with wickedscorp - I'd much rather see this with Jones in the lead, despite my love for Streep. Same thing with Proof - thought Paltrow was solid, but there wasn't a moment when I wasn't thinking "How would have Mary-Louise Parker played this?"

I agree that Jones was awesome in the role. But it's not like a step down to hire Meryl Freaking Streep. I mean Mary Louise Parker (great stage actor) to Gwyneth (good film actor) is a problem yes... but Meryl Streep is not a downgrade --they just went from great stage actor to great screen actor.

but yeah, it would be cool to see Cherry Jones have a large juicy role in a movie and this one seems like a logical move.

Technically speaking, it *is* a downgrade. Meryl is a movie star a la Hepburn -- great at playing any role, but you almost always can tell it's her (this is not a bad thing necessarily). Jones is a pure actor. She's a chameleon. Seeing her in Doubt was one of the great theatrical experiences of my life, and if they must make a movie of it -- I wish they'd just leave it alone -- then they should've tapped Jones. I'm concerned about Streep's personality overtaking Sr. Aloysius. With Jones, you'd be guaranteed this wholly fascinating person. With Streep, you'll get a character with an exclamation point.

Well, I saw the play with Eileen Eckhart in the lead, so I can't really comment on Jones. But I can say that it's a great play with or without Jones. I for one am excited that Meryl has yet another juicy role on her plate in this major career renaissance of hers. But seriously, HOW will she find the time to be in all these films?

And Streep has already proved she can step into an established stage role and make it sing on film. She was excellent in both Plenty and Angels in America. And it's very rarely that she doesn't hit a role out of the park. I'm pretty pumped for this.

Is it definitely being directed by John Patrick Shanley, though? Does he direct? I'd have more faith if it were written be him and directed by, say, Mike Nichols.

I disagree strongly on both counts. Streep puts her own personality into her roles, yes, but only in the best way. She's the original "chameleon" and I certainly would call her nothing less than a "pure actor."

I enjoyed both Proof and The History Boys - thought they were both succesful adaptations but for widely different reasons.

Gwyneth Paltrow played her Proof character on stage as well - at the prolific Donmar Warehouse in London. it wasn't really Mary Louise Parker's to own. John Madden (who directed the film) also directed this version of the play. It got rave reviews for both of them - Paltrow won the Laurence Olivier (London version of TONY).

Adam K: Agree to disagree. Matter of opinion. I adore Hepburn and Streep, as we all do, but I'd put Jones in a role like Sr. Aloysius before either of them. Doubt requires a character, not a performance.

I think comparing them is bizarre. Katharine Hepburn is very much of the Tom Cruise / Cary Grant / Julia Roberts school of pure star: always themselves with just a hint of variation for the character in question.

Streep is most definitely of the school or pure actor. She just also happens to be a movie star. I mean where is the thruline for Miranda Priestley, Isak Dinesen, Yolanda Johnson, Susan Orlean and Francesca Johnson (?) to name just a handful.

I did like Proof. Very much. I will confess that, despite being a lover of theatre, I have never actually seen a production of the play, but I can't help but wonder if that makes me less objective or more objective.

Granted, I didn't think it was perhaps a "great" movie, but I have long been of the opinion that a truly great work of art created in one medium will never be a truly great work of art in another medium. If Proof really is a great play (as many seem to claim) then there's no way it could've ever been a "great" film. It was, however, well-acted, well-directed, well-shot, well-edited and thought-provoking; almost everything one is looking for in a good movie.

(I liked Proof the movie, too. And I usually cringe when I'm forcefed Gwyneth and Hope Davis.)

As for the Streep-Hepburn thread: Lemme just say that I can always see Streep's actorly machinery working (except maybe in Sophie's Choice). It's great machinery, but it's always visible to some degree. That's why I think it's practical to compare her to Hepburn -- not in terms of their filmographies or methods, but because you can always see them working. Every time I see Jones, I don't see Jones, you know? I can't wait to (not) see her in Doubt for a third time when the tour rolls through Washington in March.

I totally disaree with JJ .. and I think NAthaniel mad my point as well. Having seen all the hepburn pictures through the years... she basically had a one note acting device... in later years her eyes would well-up in every movie.

I don't see how Streep can be said to be too strong a person to get lost in her roles.

I can't think of another actress ever who has had such a diversity of roles to the point you forget it is Streep "acting"..

Critics in the past have said she is mechanical in her roles... they are crazy!